Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 02:48:26 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: John-Mark Gurney <gurney_j@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: changes to make ethernet packets able to be unaligned... Message-ID: <20050318024418.D844@odysseus.silby.com> In-Reply-To: <20050318082810.GC37984@funkthat.com> References: <20050317221359.GN89312@funkthat.com> <20050318021907.H844@odysseus.silby.com> <20050318082810.GC37984@funkthat.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, John-Mark Gurney wrote: >> I'm confused - don't sparc64 and alpha have similar alignment >> requirements? Why does arm require code changes? > > yes, the alignment constraints for arm are the same.. the reason I > said the above is only for arm is the epe driver (which is only on > an ARM core) has been made to use the new feature... > > The changes to ip_input.c will work with other drivers as well... it > just needs to make sure that the proper defines are in amd64 and i386 > so that we don't do the fix up when we don't need to... > > -- > John-Mark Gurney Voice: +1 415 225 5579 Ok, I see what you're saying now, I had forgotten the #ifdef i386 sections we have scattered throughout the network drivers. When I read your original commit, I was thinking about the transmit paths in drivers, which is why m_copyup made no sense to me. Moving the alignment out of the drivers and into a common place seems like a good idea, but I wonder if it should be done in the ethernet code instead of in the ip code; won't other protocols have unaligned access problems if the change is made exactly as is? Mike "Silby" Silbersack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050318024418.D844>